FCC Will Also Order States To Scrap Plans For Their Own Net Neutrality Laws (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the U.S. government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting. It isn't clear yet exactly how extensive the preemption will be. Preemption would clearly prevent states from imposing net neutrality laws similar to the ones being repealed by the FCC, but it could also prevent state laws related to the privacy of Internet users or other consumer protections. Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.

Comments

B-b-b-b-but

[Anonymous Coward]

states rights!

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[shaitand]

We need net neutrality but this is interstate commerce is one of the few things that actually is within the authority granted to the federal government. That's why you don't have to pay sales tax on online purchases and mail order. Just like that sales tax there is nothing giving them authority over transactions within the state even if they are of the same nature that potentially could cross state lines though...

We really really need to stop supporting twisting the law and watering down the Constitution when it means getting some policy we want. The ends do not justify the means. There hasn't been a single policy change seriously considered or implemented in this country that provides more benefits or prevents more harm OVERALL than the limitations on government power in the Constitution. Suffrage for women and abolishing slavery are the only things that come even remotely close.

Re: B-b-b-b-but

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all the intelligent things about net neutility have already been said. Now it's just fuck Ajit Pai, and fuck Donald Trump, and fuck rich corporations that just look for ways to screw people more instead of adding something of value to society.

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[Immerman]

Actually I believe you are still required by law to pay sales tax on internet purchases. It's simply that the merchant isn't required to collect those taxes and pay them for you when they are operating out of a different state.

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[interkin3tic]

We really really need to stop supporting twisting the law and watering down the Constitution when it means getting some policy we want. The ends do not justify the means. There hasn't been a single policy change seriously considered or implemented in this country that provides more benefits or prevents more harm OVERALL than the limitations on government power in the Constitution

What does that have to do with the issue at hand though? You can almost always make an argument about something is/is not constitutional. This is no different. Nothing is squarely unconstitutional, and the constitution is intentionally NOT a guide for every policy question.

Please, tell me what is twisting the constitution to regulate ISPs as common carriers. Or what is twisting the constitution to NOT regulate them that way. Or to tell the states they can't regulate ISPs by claiming it's interstate commerce.

And I'd be REALLY interested in how you have an opinion on the constitutionality of Pai's dictate or counter-arguments... when there are no details about the policy yet....

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[gtall]

Bullshit. You recall the FDA, not in the Constitution. Yet they prevent Joe's Bait and Pill Emporium from poisoning your mother with fake headache pills, or you with fake erectile dysfunction "medicine". The NiH does research into diseases with your name on them, not in the Constitution. The FAA prevents airlines from using accounting methods to find the correct price point between crashes and loyal ridership. They also have vehicle emissions standards so we don't revert to LA circa 1960's air, much as the alleged Administration looks back in fondness at those times. Rules and laws against workplace discrimination, again the alleged Administration looks back fondly at the 1950s, which is strange because most minorities do not have such fond memories. Neither do women.

The list goes on.

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[Dog-Cow]

FCC does not make law. They make regulations.

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[Talderas]

Interstate commerce has frequently been abused since the 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn which pretty much held all economic activity as interstate. Electing not to purchase something is interstate commerce that can be regulated because you are participating in the interstate market by lowering the demand in the market. If you want to talk about twisting the Constitution around, this is probably one of the most egregious rulings from the Supreme Court permitting twisting.

Re:B-b-b-b-but

[slinches]

So pass an amendment that gives the federal government those authorities. Undermining the constitution, even for good reasons, still weakens our rights and threatens the fundamental concept of consent to govern. How can we feel represented when the fundamental rules of our government are ignored whenever it's convenient for whoever is in power?

Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks again, Trump voters! I really can not express strongly enough what an awesome decision you made.

Re:Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp

[fyrewulff]

By law, the FCC must have 2 members from one party and 3 from the other. Obama was literally required to appoint Pai to the board.

Re: Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that. I blame people that actually voted for Trump and those that didnâ(TM)t vote.

Re:Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp

[mukinrestak]

No, he was required to appoint a Republican. He didn't have to choose an ISP mouthpiece/lobbyist as the one he appointed.

Folks, we are in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.

Re:Folks, we are in big trouble

[shaitand]

Semi-auto handguns with 15-16 shots? What are you an anti-gun nut? These aren't exactly military grade weapons. I would have thought emulating a military rifle in Vegas would have highlighted the difference for everyone. Military SMALL arms are FULL AUTO (selectable of course). Semi-auto doesn't mean much of anything, 15-16 shots is really just needed with a handgun since they are completely inaccurate and generally useless unless you are within baseball bat range.

If you are going to talk about the police weapons I'd mention the shot guns, high powered rifles, grenades and tanks.

Re: Folks, we are in big trouble

[ClickOnThis]

I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.

Won't kill it. Just turn it into something more like cable TV.

The difference being?

Re:Folks, we are in big trouble

[gtall]

The Orange Fuhrer has no opinions in the sense of most of the rest of us, he doesn't do policy. He only repeats what Fox News tells him is "twooo".

One thing to remember about that Knob, he's got no strategy for anything. It is simply gut reactions to everything. He's easily manipulated and only repeats whatever he heard last. He's completely incapable of fitting the pieces of his alleged Administration into any cohesive plan for governance. You can see this when he uses to the Press to communicate with the heads of the executive branch agencies.

You can also see his incompetence in the people he puts in charge of those agencies and in other positions. He'll take someone with no expertise in an area and make them head of the executive fiefdom for that area. The only reason the U.S. hasn't folded up on itself is inertia. And it will continue that way until that Knob leaves office. The problems he's set in motion will come back to bite us, especially the tax giveaway currently giving the R's wet dreams. When the budget gets sucked up by interest payments, then people will realize what damage he really did, but it will be too late. And Grandma will be coming to live with you because the government can no longer afford her. Better start saving.

Re:Folks, we are in big trouble

[tbannist]

When the budget gets sucked up by interest payments, then people will realize what damage he really did, but it will be too late.

Sadly, I don't think they will. By the time the damage comes home to roost, the Republicans will have a new scapegoat and because the liberal media is "totally fake", their prime voters will only hear their stories. It'll be the democrats fault, just like how they tried to blame Obama for the 2008 meltdown that started before he was elected. Any anger at the Republicans will be channelled into a conservative-controlled group like the Tea Party so that it can be redirected at the Democrats and the whole mess can happen again.

Bonus

[mrwireless]

"And if you can kill it at the state level too, we'll throw in a private jet"

Sigh.

It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.

Re:Bonus

[Baron_Yam]

>It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.

For the rest of the world, services can be hosted outside the USA and we won't have a problem. Any American content that can be locally cached in our countries will be fine, too. So maybe we'll have issues with American sporting events, possibly trouble if we want to join a multiplayer gaming server in the US. I don't think it'll hurt the rest of the world enough to care. If anything, it'll reduce American media influence around the globe.

For you Americans, though... if your American ISP decides to charge based on packet type AND either the origin or destination, you're done. It's not like you can use a VPN connection to access services from outside a 'no-net-neutrality zone', because they'll be charging the highest rates for that kind of traffic specifically to prevent such behaviour.

Americans will get less choice and higher prices as ISPs promote vertical integration by adding costs to services they don't own (or aren't owned by).

Re: Bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

The social unrest part is Fox News bullshit. We're fine. Fix your own shit, USA.

Re:Bonus

[dave420]

That's demonstrably not true, though. If it was the case, European ISPs and communications would be as crippled as they are in the US, which is not the case.

Interstate service but not a utility?

[Tinsoldier314]

Somehow the rationalization that the internet is simultaneously a vital interstate service that precludes state regulation and a purely market driven business seems like a big business wet dream.

States can regulate and tax most businesses but not *this* business because it's special for "reasons".

Re:Interstate service but not a utility?

[Rick Schumann]

Are you old enough to remember life before the Internet? Some of us are, and some of us are prepared to go back to living without it, if necessary.

Re:Interstate service but not a utility?

[Tailhook]

Indeed. Entities that simultaneously have no Title II obligations yet enjoy Title II-like protection from liability for criminal activity conducted using their facilities.

Re:Interstate service but not a utility?

[shaitand]

Verizon AKA MCI AKA Former AT&T has managed to be protected by telco regulation while avoiding any inconvenient telco regulation as a broadband provider for decades. This is just the next generation of the wet dream.

Re: Interstate service but not a utility?

[Fly Swatter]

How will they be a problem? Once the internet is gone they can't hail an uber ride or order supplies. GPS without on-line maps will make it hard for them to find even their own house. The withdrawal symptoms alone will render them useless. They won't know what to do because social media isn't there to tell them what to think.

"I am altering the deal...."

[Ichijo]

"Pray I don't alter it any further."

Dear Mr. Pai

[JohnFen]

Fuck you twice, then. Once for letting the foxes into the henhouse, and once more for locking the door behind them.

Obligatory Robot Chicken

[DontBeAMoran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

10th Amendment baby!

[sphealey]

- - - - - In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. - - - - -

I suspect that tomorrow will not be a big day for my hard Radical Right coworkers to expound on the centrality of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, nor to opine on "states' rights". Just a guess.

Re:10th Amendment baby!

[Ogive17]

They can't count past the 2nd Amendment.

Re:10th Amendment baby!

[mvdwege]

No, they're pointing out that the Right has always been hypocritical about 'States' Rights'. Shenanigans like this just prove that it always has been about one thing: enshrining bigotry in law.

Re:10th Amendment baby!

[serviscope_minor]

You hyperpartisan nutcases are basically going to be the ruination of this world.

You appear to swear near undying allegiance ot the party in power and hate the scum in opposition.

Essentially the party in power has done something you don't like so you find a way to make that a criticism of the scum you despise rather than the ones you worship.

Drop they hyperpartisan bullshit, pull your head out of your arse and start evaluating the actions on their own merit rather than whether they come with a little red or blue flag attached.

FCC *can* override State laws?

[redmasq]

I remember something about Tennessee...
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.go...

Maybe related?

Re:Watch the states

[ClickOnThis]

Tell the FCC to fuck off and die.

In more polite terms, I would not be surprised if individual states begin to do exactly that, through the courts. I wish them luck, sincerely. IMHO, I would tell them to reset their mission to one that protects consumers from thoe who provide service to them.

The internet, from its beginnings, has aspired to be a communication medium. In the hands of ISPs and their allies in government, it has slowly evolved into a broadcast medium. Imagine a telephone company that only lets you say one word for every X that gets spoken back to you, and X varies with who you call. That's where we're headed, if we aren't there already.

you either keep control or you lose it, no both

[eyenot]

a few things before i start in:

* I actually remember when the EFF was about preventing unecessary regulations and legislation for the sake of avoiding creating bubbles of fantasy land bullshit. The old thinking was that computers don't obey legislation. Now I'm dosheartened to see the EFF actively calling for regulations and laws to force things to be convenient for them. Who the fuck is writing this shit?

* I'm all for net neutrality, because I like the internet as a vital and growing platform for business and creativity, networking and socializing.

So, let me start in.

This shit is a fucking non. Issue.

Look, nobody is paying for the internet just to make a modem connect across miles of line to a distant server just for the wow factor. Nobody is paying for internet service just to ssh to the ISP and >message everyone else who's logged in.

And nobody is paying for internet service just to connect to the WWW pages of their favorite sites just for wow factor, either. The front pages of most web sites and services are really fucking boring and typically just offer shit like legal things to read, contact pages, "about us", etc. Most sites these days don't even offer a site map, so we're talking immensely boring.

EVERYBODY who connects to the internet is connecting to see other users' content.

Nearly every major web site or service exists to host user content: forums; photo hosting; facebook; twitter; youtube, vimeo, vidme; reddit; amazon, ebay, craigslist; they all host user content. The exceptions like netflix, hulu, other entertainment services, let's leave them out of the discussion. Even fucking redbox has a website; so does your local library. But let's acknowledge that even though those sites don't host user generated content, they wouldn't exist without the users who show up to drink from the media tap.

No sites exist just to be on a hard drive somewhere. Well there's weird shit like Zombo.com but I think you get my point: the biggest sites online are all about connecting people to people, and the rest are about connecting people to companies.

Nowhere in ANY of this is the user left out of the equation. The user is part of the flowchart every step of the way. If you think otherwise, sorry, you're fucking retarded.

Which means that the user is in a position to place demands. You want congress to do that for you, that's great, have fun going round and round the cycle of bubble-bust bubble-bust while you strive to maintain the illusion of fantasy land and work on suspending your disbelief.

Some people, notably Stephen King (check his twitter) think net neutrality is about censorship.

Guess what, jerky? It's got shit to do with censorship. We have net neutrality right now, and facebook, twitter, youtube, and google have been censoring what you are allowed to see for over a year, and it's all been politically motivated. If you aren't aware of any of that, either you just got out of prison or, sorry, you're retarded.

Net neutrality is about whether your service providers, the content-less middle men just passing data between you and the sites that exist only to serve you, will get to start charging you to reach those sites. Of course you should feel a little discouraged at that prospect, considering by and large those sites work by not charging you anything (at least not up front. And in the case of twitter, I hear that for $99/mo. you can buy a sponsored content account and boila, no more bans). Without those sites being able to offer that service, those sites don't work out to be as big as they are today. Without those sites being that big, ISPs have nothing much to sell the vast majority of users. Now you can see how and why the user has control, complete and utter fucking control, of the situation.

So here's the fucking deal. Here's how and why net neutrality is a non issue: the user can flip the table by getting the websites on their side.

Here's the proposal:

1. Users get the major sites to agree that ISPs mon

Re:you either keep control or you lose it, no both

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the ISPs actually don't want the internet in the first place.
So they just black list any site that doesn't pay them, their customers are locked in to the ISP since they have a monopoly where they live, so they just can't access those sites.

In the end every website is blocked and the only thing you can do is get to the ISP's content (News/Movies/TV Series) because of vertical integration. And this is exactly what the ISP would like the best.

It is win-win for the ISP, either sites pay them and they got money, or they become a content monopoly and they get more money by increasing prices.